create_hybrid_timestampGenerates a hybrid timestamp from the local clock and a specified uncertainty bound for a given gateway, ensuring verifiable time anchoring in agent trust protocols.
Create a hybrid timestamp using the local clock and a supplied uncertainty bound.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| drift_ms | No | NTP drift bound in milliseconds | |
| gateway_id | Yes | Gateway issuing the timestamp |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev2.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that the value derives from the local clock plus a caller-supplied bound, but it does not say whether the result is reproducible across calls (a real question given a local clock and idempotentHint) or what form the timestamp takes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, stating action, inputs, and mechanism in one pass. Nothing in it could be trimmed without losing information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it never says whether the result is a scalar timestamp, an object, or how the uncertainty bound is reflected. For a two-parameter, low-complexity tool with full annotation coverage this is adequate but leaves a meaningful gap on return semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with drift_ms documented as an NTP drift bound in milliseconds and gateway_id as the issuing gateway, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'supplied uncertainty bound' loosely maps to drift_ms and adds no syntax, units, or range information beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb and resource ('Create a hybrid timestamp') and clarifies the mechanism (local clock plus a supplied uncertainty bound), which is more than a tautology. It does not, however, distinguish itself from temporal siblings such as compare_timestamps or is_evidence_fresh, so an agent gets no routing signal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the temporal siblings (compare_timestamps, validate_temporal_rights, is_evidence_fresh) or any prerequisite context. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.